# 6227 / rist camp • common places • landscape ~ looking around the place

August 30, 2022

***made from my Adirondack chair on the Rist Camp porch*** ~ (embiggenable)

“Your own photography is never enough. Every photographer who has lasted has depended on other peoples pictures too – photographs that may be public or private, serious or funny but that carry with them a reminder of community.” ~ Robert Adams

WITHOUT A DOUBT, I CAN WRITE THAT MY own photography is never enough. Evidence of such is the amount of time spent, almost daily, wandering about the interweb looking for / at good pictures. That time is augmented by visits to galleries in order to view photographs. And, time spent viewing photographer monograph books should be thrown into the time-eater machine as well.

I spent all of that time viewing photographs simply cuz of the pleasure I get from doing so. That pleasure, for me, comes in 2 forms: 1) call it inspiration inasmuch as the shear diversity of POVs-how other picture makers see the world-encountered inspire me to keep on making pictures in the manner of how I see the world, and, 2) although I never thought of it this way, it is Adams’ idea of “reminder of community”.

I am not certain if Adams’ idea of “community” is photographer community based or humanity community based, Or, quite possibly, both. However one chooses to understand it, for purposes of this entry I am going with photographer-based community…

In my quest for finding and viewing good photographs, I find the the interweb is a very messy place. Doing searches based on the words “photography / photographs” most often yields up a lot chaff and precious little wheat. Instagram used to be useful but no much anymore. If you are into “groups”-usually very specific types of photography-flickr might be a good thing-but not so much for me.

In any event, let me suggest a method for getting right to the nub of viewing some damn good photographs…

Over the years, I have been submitting photographs to Photo Place Gallery themed juried exhibitions (with, I might add, a great deal of acceptance success). The themed exhibitions request for submissions are issued on a monthly basis and subsequent exhibitions are also presented on a monthly basis. Those photos which are accepted are exhibited online and on the walls of the gallery-in Middlebury, VT. And, get this, for a very nominal fee, the gallery will print and frame your photo for the exhibition. FYI, you can request the print (not the frame) after the exhibition comes down.

That written, I mention Photo Place Gallery for 2 reasons: 1) if you are at times running out of reasons to make pictures, it might be helpful to use Photo Place Gallery’s monthly themes as an exercise to get out there and make pictures, even if you do not submit the pictures for exhibition consideration. When the themed exhibition appears online, you can then see how other picture makers approached the subject, and, 2) re: the point of this entry, the online exhibitions have links to the accepted pictures maker’s websites.

Cuz the quality of the accepted photographs-30 for the gallery / online exhibition + 30 more for an additional online exhibition (selected from several thousands of submissions)-is very high*, using this website as a portal for the viewing, on the accepted photographer’s sites, of some very fine bodies of work is a no-brainer.

The number of viewing possibilities is, quite frankly, overwhelming. I think it possible that one could spend the better part of a year-with time out for coffee and a few naps-exploring the wealth of offerings.

*FYI, the jurist’s for the exhibitions, a different, single jurist for each, are nationally and internationally known photographers, gallery directors, or teachers. Hence the very high quality of the accepted photographs.

6222-26 / common places-things • kitchen sink • rist camp ~ deception

August 28, 2022

“Why do most great pictures look uncontrived? Why do photographers bother with the deception, especially since it so often requires the hardest work of all? The answer is, I think, that the deception is necessary if the goal of art is to be reached: only pictures that look as if they had been easily made can convincingly suggest that beauty is commonplace.” ~ Robert Adams

This Robert Adams quote has always held my attention inasmuch as it kinda, sorta skirts around the edges of my picture making intentions. My eye and sensibilities are unquestionably pricked by the commonplace and the avoidance of the grand geste (picture making wise) but, I can not write that I fully embrace the idea that “beauty is commonplace”.

To put a finer point on that idea, iMo, there is not a lot in the commonplace world that is visually beautiful in and of itself. However, within the domain of picture making, much of the commonplace world contains visual fodder for the making of beautiful things, “things” being photographic prints which give to evidence to finely seen and pictured form.

That written, while there are some who can see an actual blade of grass and perceive / feel / experience the every-thing-is-connected beauty underlying the universe, it is probable that they might not experience the same thing while gazing at a rather mundane picture of that same blade of grass.

By the same token, I also believe that many viewers, looking at a picture of that same blade of grass which-in its totality across its visual plane-evidences a depiction of a finely seen sense of form, might be incited to exclaim, “That is beautiful.” However, is the viewer remarking on the blade of grass itself or the depiction thereof? I wonder cuz, without a doubt, the blade of grass and the depiction of it are most definitely not the same “thing.”

All of that written, I am still faced with the is-beauty-commonplace question. And, the best answer I have been able to come up with is that, no, within the context of the real world, beauty is not commonplace. However, within the context of picture making, the commonplace is rife possibilities for coaxing beauty from the seeming rubble of the mundane.

#6218-21 / landscape • natural world • ku ~ ignoring the forest for the trees

August 25, 2022

WHEN I FIRST MOVED TO THE ADIRONDACKS-nearly 25 years ago-I was all psyched up to take the making of pictures of the Adirondacks-grand and glorious landscapes and such-by storm. After 50 years of untold number of visits to the Adirondacks-many of which were paid for by picking up checks-from gallery sales of my Adirondack pictures-I finally had the opportunity to immerse myself full-time in creating what I was certain would be an incredible Adirondack-based body of work. It was my intention to build upon my existing 15 picture body of work (8x10 view camera / color negative film / 8x10 contact prints )-5 of which were flying off of gallery walls.

That written, it never happened…a variety of life events-none tragic, all good-conspired to keep me from concentrating on my intended picture making pursuit. The first and foremost amongst those events was photo related-the demise of the availability of film-based picture making products and services-film and processing labs-and the fact that I never got around to building my color printing darkroom (FYI, I never sold a print that I did not make myself). So most of my then picture making was devoted to making somewhat “standard”-although spectacular-Adirondack pictures for use in a wide variety of Adirondack advertising / marketing campaigns.

Eventually, after making the transition to the digital picture making world, I began to find time to make non-standard Adirondack-based pictures. By that time I was no longer interested in making “standard” landscape pictures and I turned my attention to the ubiquitous quotidian characteristic of the Adirondacks to which no one was paying attention-my scrub, thicket, and tree tangles work-much less making pictures thereof. A period of picture making which my son referred to as my Pollock Period. To this day, my eye and sensibilities are still pricked by such referents and I continue to make similar pictures but I am no longer in hot pursuit of such.

All of the above written, as I sit here today at Rist Camp, I have resolved to turn my Adirondack picture making intentions to a broader (yet still rather intimate) field of view of the forest itself. Unlike the vast majority of Adirondack picture makers who wander all over the place in picture making pursuit of “grand” and pictorially “glorious” Adirondack landscapes and who seem not to notice or picture, in their words, the plain old forest, my eye and sensibilities find a wealth of interesting-albeit “subdued”-picture possibilities.

Turning my picture making intentions to such a referent(s) should not be difficult. It should only require getting off, literally and figuratively, the “standard” picture making path.

# 6214-17 / camp daze ~ staying close to home

August 23, 2022

SETTLED IN TO RIST CAMP FOR OUR-including our cat-5 week stay. All of my conflicted Jersey Shore vibes have been washed away by the falling rain.

Some of our neighbors in our small Adirondack hamlet question why we vacation within the Adirondacks a mere 50 miles, as the crow flies, from our home. The answer is simple enough…cuz when you live in the Land That Time Forgot-the largest park east of the Mississippi in which all of the public lands are protected “as forever wild” in the NY State Constitution, a region larger than the state of Vermont in which there is but one McDonalds, one Dunkin Donuts, one national chain hotel, a region in which the towns and hamlets are committed to preserving their traditional, aka: rustic, character, and in which, at Rist Camp, we listen to the loons calling day and night, the coyotes howling in the night and watching eagles, hawks soaring overhead and osprey diving for fish, what’s the point of going to…say…the Jersey Shore?

# 6210-13 / common places • common things • kitchen sink ~ qoutidian ubiquity

August 19, 2022

FORTUNATELY, RE; MY EYE AND SENSIBILITIES, IT SEEMS that no matter where I go are there is always a kitchen sink and kitchen garbage.

On a different topic, I have been avoiding getting caught up in the monochrome sensor GAS” discussion”. That’s primarily cuz I do not think that my thoughts on the matter would be all that well considered.

First and foremost, I admit to not being much of a BW-oops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-picture making guy. That’s cuz, for the most part, I believe that BW picture making is a curse on the medium and its apparatus.

Think of it this way…with the exception of cave dwellers, virtually all painting was created using color...ASIDE Sure, sure. With the advent of the printing press, illustrations were presented with the use of just black ink, BUT, even then some illustrators were given to hand coloring the printed illustrations. And, BTW, for the purpose this discussion, etchings and woodcuts are not paintings. END OF ASIDE…So when color dyes / paint became available, painters took to it like ducks to water. Without too much assumption, one could surmise that they adopted color materials cuz they were exceedingly more expressive and representative of the real world. And, fortuitously, they were never burdened by the need to break out of or revert to a BW painting legacy.

The medium of photography and its apparatus were born and wedded to BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-pictures and continued to be so bound until the 1936 introduction of Kodachrome film. ASIDE Sure, sure. Prior to 1936, there were a number attempts to create the means for making color photographs but they came and went in fairly short order. END OF ASIDE However, even with the advent of commercially available color film, “serious” photographers remained committed to using BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-film and, of course, making BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-prints.

Re: the curse - that BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-legacy has attached itself to the medium and its apparatus like fleas on a mangy dog. Consequently, those picture makers who cling to it today, in a manner similar to a deeply held religious belief, are given to uttering, in defense of their precious process, such ludicrous nonsense as it is easier to see and capture form or a person’s inner essence without the “distraction” of color. Nonsense.

ASIDE To be certain, if BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-picture making is your thing, have at it unto your heart’s content. While, I appreciate much of the classic BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-work of the picture making masters, I just do not see the need for it any more. END OF ASIDE

Re: my second thought on BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-picture making…the current practitioners of that genre seem to be hung up on the idea the only good BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-pictures are those made the analog way, aka: using film or some digital facsimile thereof. In their quest for such a facsimile, they have landed on the idea of monochrome sensors as if those sensors create are more “pure” BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-files than converting a color image file to BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome.

That notion is something that I can not wrap my head around inasmuch as, in the digital color>BW conversion domain, there is such a variety of conversion techniques / options that the picture maker has the capability to create any “look” imaginable for his/her pictures. Apparently, the current crop of BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-pictures makers do not like the digital conversion process cuz-here’s the curse again-that’s not the way it was always done.

And, please stop already with the ridiculously absurd idea that “seeing” in BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-is easier / better when the image on the camera screen / viewfinder is BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome. That’s akin to saying Evans, Adams (both), Weston, Frank, and all the others who came before the advent of a digital BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome sensor would have somehow had an easier time of making pictures-perhaps even “better” pictures-if only they had a Leica Q2 Monochrom (or whatever the current fan boy monochrome-there, I got it right-sensor camera may be)? Once again, nonsense.

PS the BW-ops, sorry, I meant to write monochrome-picture in this entry was converted from a color image file by first converting it to LAB Color Space then isolating the Lightness Channel by discarding the A and B Channels. At that point, I convert the file to RGB Color Space and then make minor adjustments, global and local, to taste using the Curves tool in PS.

#6207-09 / commonplaces • nocturnal ~ night prowler

August 18, 2022

THERE ARE MORE EXAMPLES OF CLICHED / BAD ADVICE FOR the making of pictures than one can shake a stick at. iMo, the leading candidate for bad advice, re: the making of pictures which might be considered as Art, is the oft heard / read idea that one should make pictures of some thing about which one cares or is interested in. A bit of advice which, on its face, makes a certain amount of sense. That is, except for the fact that the idea of ”thing” is almost always understood literally, aka: as an actual person, place, or thing.

Consequently, the bulk of “serious” amateurs head out and make pictures that I would label as quite literal. Straight forward, descriptive pictures which are focused on actual people, places, or things. The result of which is a zillion or more very nicely composed, technically competent, markedly look-alike Decorative Art pictures.

And, the inevitable result of that glut of samo-samo pictures is the oft heard complaint, “every thing that can be pictured has already been pictured”. That angst leads to the pursuit of making pictures of the same old subjects / things but with special “effects”. All in an effort to make pictures that are “different” or more “artistic”. Which, iMo, is taking a bad idea and making it even worse.

In any event, my idea-in the cause of contravening the preceding bad advice-is to interpret the notion of “thing” as a mental concept or abstract idea as opposed to an actual physical thing, aka: person, place, or thing. As an example…

…the pictures in this entry. The literal-ists in the crowd might perceive that I made pictures of a white house, a shed, and a side door when, in fact, while those “things” are depicted in these pictures, the “thing” I was picturing was the concept of “night”.

While the concept of night is not overtly intellectually complex, it is, for some (including myself), emotionally compelling / complex. Although some might consider this concept to be somewhat simple-minded, my point is that a concept does not have to be mind-bending or a trip down the rabbit hole.

The important thing is to get away from the mindset that making pictures is all about the literally depicted referent cuz it is at that point that a picture can truly be about more than what meets the eye.

# 6204-06 / the shore ~ riding it out

August 16, 2022

Ornithologists concluded that migratory birds take hundreds of naps as they fly: they also practice unilateral eye closure, in which one eye closes, thereby permitting half the brain to sleep. Is this what happens when photographers close one eye to look through a viewfinder. If so, they might be operating with only half a brain. Perhaps that explains… ~ Bill Jay

I AM CURRENTLY AT THE SOUTH JERSEY SHORE FOR MY annual tour of hell on earth. Fortunately, this week hell is much cooler than usual. Maybe the horned guy is outa town and the furnace stokers are slacking off.

In any event, the fact is that I have something to look forward to. At the end of my week in hell, we move on to heaven on earth, or at least a part of it, for our annual 5 week Summer into Autumn stay at our Adirondack retreat, aka: Rist Camp. Although we will have visitors from time to time, it’s a protracted period of quiet isolation on hill top overlooking a lake with the Adirondack High Peaks as a backdrop.

PS I am quite pleased that I do not have to close one eye to look through a viewfinder when using the iPhone. Cuz, that way-with both eyes open-I can operate it using both sides of my brain.

# 6203 / kitchen life • common things ~ writing about photography as art

August 14, 2022

Consider this, re: good field strategy:

THE VISUAL TEXTURE OF THE PHOTOGRAPH derives from an optical mix of steadfastly articulate, recorded facts that have been presented in a manner calculated to emphasize the subject matter’s cumulative rather than individual visual appearance.

FYI, I consider the subject and its visual essence to be indivisible and the complexity of any given environment as potentially articulate aesthetic material.

The preceding is a slightly modified-by me-excerpt from Chapter 2: COLOR PHOTOGRAPHIC FORMALISM in the book the new color photography by Sally Eauclaire (a friend for whom I was a consultant on the book). I have co-opted it to make 2 points:

Eauclaire’s idea, re: Field Strategy, pretty much describes the (my) picture which accompanies this entry.
writing about art, subset photography as art, can get pretty “academic” / art-speak wordy at times. Some might even suggest that it can get rather obtuse.

So, my answer to the question raised in the preceding entry - why we don't talk more about the "art" of photography instead of going over lots of gear and technical work?- is that if one wishes to write or read about the “art of photography”, one needs to write or read about art in a more general sense. That is, if one aspires to making pictures that are considered to be Fine Art (as opposed to Decorative Art), one had better read up on what the FIne Art World considers to be Art. And, there is precious little written about Art in general, photography in particular, on the interweb.

Much of what has been written about Art, in book form, has been written by academics who, seemingly by natural inclination, are devoted to shunning simple English….

…formalists perceive real objects and intervening space as interanimating segments of a total visual presentation. They test every edge, tone, color, and texture for its expressive potential and structural function. Each photograph represents a delicately adjusted equilibrium in which a section of the world is co-opted for its visual capabilities. yet delineated with utmost specificity. The resultant image exists simultaneously as a continuous visual plane on which every space and object are interlocking pieces of a carefully constructed jig-saw puzzle and a window through which the viewer can discern navigable space and recognizable subject matter.

My point: if I, or anyone, were to write about the art of photography in any manner resembling the preceding excerpts-which I firmly believe are actually quite on point, photography as art wise-I believe the “average” reader of just about any blog would stop dead, eyes glazed over, at “real objects and intervening space as interanimating segments”, not to mention “expressive potential and structural function”, “delicately adjusted equilibrium”, and “co-opted for its visual capabilities”. I mean, how many of you out there have a “field strategy”?

So, why bother going down that road? The audience would be minuscule.

All of the above written, I must admit that I have read quite a lot about Art and the subset of photography as ART and it hasn’t hurt me none. Some of that reading has even helped me discover and understand what the hell I am doing-acting more intuitively (recognizing and expressing my “inner” self) rather than acting out a conscious intellectual strategy-in my picture making endeavors. And, I would highly recommend to those wishing to discover and understand what the hell they are doing, picture making wise, to read as much as they can stand about Art with the objective of cultivating a “feel” for the making of Art.

However, writing about the art of photography is not something I pursue on this blog. What I have written about photography on this blog has been more concerned with the idea of what exactly is a photograph? or, what are the medium’s intrinsic characteristics / strengths? And that is what I will continue to do.